SL3 Rumors

[keeping_a_balance]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have used the SL2S in pouring downpours and it survived with APO lenses, I am not sure how well my Sony would have done in those conditions.  This is however not the norm.

There is something about the SL2S that I have not found in any other camera in terms of feel, and pleasure when taking images with it.  However I find it heavy.  If I am touristing or doing a day of street, I can't wait to put it down at the end of the day.   when I don't have it on my, I yearn for it. 

SL3, if it adds some manual focus assist like the Zf sort of thing, on top of all the other nice upgrades it's rumored to bring, I may look to upgrade.  Do I need any of these upgrades or a new camera - NO!

I guess we see on Mar 7th.  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[trickness]

37 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I guess you never tried a Ricoh GRIII

I have and I don’t care for it. But as an example for a useful tool with a laundry list of compromises, this camera certainly is a good one.

Edited February 29, 2024 by trickness

[trickness]

36 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

If I want to shoot with a 50, I just put it on an M, and don’t need the grip or the EVF. The SL(2) serves different needs and circumstances for me, like accommodating more pig-ish lenses, or for lenses not well suited for RF viewing on an M. 
 

But that’s just me. A key benefit of the SL system is that it can serve as many approaches as there are users. Blanket statements, about any given approach, will not apply to many.

That said, I’d welcome a smaller, lighter EVF-based system.

Jeff

I certainly agree about blanket statements not applying to everybody. And the same goes for cameras. It seems like the people who complain the loudest about how heavy the SL is are those who use the M system. But there are many reasons why the SL is heavier than the M, and they never mention those.

All of these cameras are tools, there are several different flavors to choose from by Leica, lots more from other brands. But there is no one camera that is gonna make everybody happy. Perhaps some folks would be better served finding another camera to use than endlessly going on about how heavy it is.

[daned]

A bit of a different question so I apologize if not meant for this group, but am a previous SL2 user, own a Q3. Reason selling SL was the size and weight specially after putting on lenses. Hoping the SL3 is smaller and lighter. For the first time tried an M11 at the Leica store and the weight and size just drew my attention towards it knowing it's a manual focus camera and rangefinder. Never used a range finder and not sure how easy it would be to transition to one but keep deliberating between the SL3 even though we are not sure what  the camera would be like or a M11. Given the situation would it make sense to move to a M11 and how difficult is it to adopt or stick with the SL3 and get smaller M lenses or other brand lenses to keep weight down.

Q3 is an amazing camera but the limitation is the lenses.

[johnbuckley]

The expression “horses for courses” applies when talking about SLs and Ms. I use Ms for street and SLs for landscape, typically. (Like Trickness, there are circumstances where I use my SL2 with a 75 Nocti or the SL50 Summilux — there’s a pig of a lens, physically — when shooting big, outdoor events where there’s no real benefit to subtlety.) But the one situation in which I really do complain about the SL2 and zoom size and weight is hiking. It’s a legitimate concern when going for a six-hour hike with 3000 feet of vertical gained and lost.
 

Once the M11 and M11M came out, given their 60mp sensors, it didn’t make sense to hike in the mountains with a significantly heavier camera and less resolution. Now that the SL3 is coming out, however, I’m looking forward to hiking with it. The extra weight is immaterial, given I can take the 24-70 zoom, which is svelte compared to the 24-90, and need no other lens to shoot with a 60mp sensor. Can’t wait. 

[LocalHero1953]

9 minutes ago, trickness said:

I certainly agree about blanket statements not applying to everybody. And the same goes for cameras. It seems like the people who complain the loudest about how heavy the SL is are those who use the M system. But there are many reasons why the SL is heavier than the M, and they never mention those.

🤷‍♂️

🤣

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, trickness said:

I find the people who complain the most about the SL2 weight are people who either are coming from the M and/or whom don’t seem to shoot that much.

I almost never hear complaints about the SL2 weight from anyone who shoots with it on a semi-professional level or above.

All the Pro's that I know, myself included, complain about weight on every system that we happen to own 🤔. For all of them, lighter weight means that you can carry an extra lens, flash, gimbal, tripod etc... I routinely carry my gear for hours on end, and every 100g is scruntanized. That said, I will add weight for functionality. I did lug a SL 50 Lux clean across Vietnam 😁

[Jon Warwick]

5 minutes ago, johnbuckley said:

The expression “horses for courses” applies when talking about SLs and Ms. I use Ms for street and SLs for landscape, typically. (Like Trickness, there are circumstances where I use my SL2 with a 75 Nocti or the SL50 Summilux — there’s a pig of a lens, physically — when shooting big, outdoor events where there’s no real benefit to subtlety.) But the one situation in which I really do complain about the SL2 and zoom size and weight is hiking. It’s a legitimate concern when going for a six-hour hike with 3000 feet of vertical gained and lost.
 

Once the M11 and M11M came out, given their 60mp sensors, it didn’t make sense to hike in the mountains with a significantly heavier camera and less resolution. Now that the SL3 is coming out, however, I’m looking forward to hiking with it. The extra weight is immaterial, given I can take the 24-70 zoom, which is svelte compared to the 24-90, and need no other lens to shoot with a 60mp sensor. Can’t wait. 

Sounds very similar to my use, ie, I like EVFs for landscapes, mainly due to the accuracy of composing with the EVF over the rangefinder; and prefer the M11 for everything else. I carried both a GFX100S and M11 (and series 1 Gitzo) around the hillsides of Chamonix last year, similar type of vertical gain of 3-5,000 feet. I took the GFX for resolution, and the M11 given my preference of its rendering! I can potentially see an SL3 being useful as a blend of the various aspects that I liked off the GFX/M11 for the mountain trips, especially if it maintains a high resolution mode.

Regarding weight, I’d be delighted if the SL3 is lighter than its predecessor, but cognisant that it’s all fairly light compared to the 5x4 I used a few years ago on the same trips. I was ready for a cold beer after those hikes!

[Stuart Richardson]

I have to agree with trickness that it does seem like the people pushing the hardest for a smaller, lighter SL are more coming from the M, while people who seem to be quite satisfied with the size and weight are coming from the S. I don't think that is an unfair assessment. It only makes sense. I agree with sebben though that a lot of this would be solved with an M sized changeable lens EVF camera. At least in my opinion, this is what the CL should have been -- exactly as it was in the analog version. A compact full frame camera with an M mount, not an APS C version. The Q garners most of those sales, but people looking for an EVF M replacement gravitate to the SL, but that is not really what the design brief was. It was meant to be a full sized professional SLR replacement. Just look at the first lenses that came out for it...they were all enormous. Making it smaller and lighter is unlikely to help with the balance of those lenses. Already the SL2 and 90-280 feel a bit unbalanced because the lens is so large and heavy. In any case, Leica will do what they think suits the system best, but I personally would prefer if they kept the SL bodies more or less how they were with the SL and SL2. It would be nice however if the lovers of more compact cameras got their wish though too, perhaps with a compact full frame EVF camera. 

[steveBK]

17 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

Sounds very similar to my use, ie, I like EVFs for landscapes, mainly due to the accuracy of composing with the EVF over the rangefinder; and prefer the M11 for everything else. I carried both a GFX100S and M11 (and series 1 Gitzo) around the hillsides of Chamonix last year, similar type of vertical gain of 3-5,000 feet. I took the GFX for resolution, and the M11 given my preference of its rendering! I can potentially see an SL3 being useful as a blend of the various aspects that I liked off the GFX/M11 for the mountain trips, especially if it maintains a high resolution mode.

Regarding weight, I’d be delighted if the SL3 is lighter than its predecessor, but cognisant that it’s all fairly light compared to the 5x4 I used a few years ago on the same trips. I was ready for a cold beer after those hikes!

I'm similar.  M primary + EVF system of some sort, especially landscapes.

Would you replace the GFX with the SL3?  
Why did you go GFX over Hassy X2D given the design philosophy of Hassy being more Leica-esque?

I've had the SL, SL2, X1D all previously plus various Sony/Nikon mirrorless.  

Purely on specs, the GFX makes more sense especially if you consider cost.
I couldn't get my head around trying GFX after seeing the body/lens size & more-is-more controls design ala Sony.  

[tomasis7]

As some said, leave M and SL as they are then add CL with a 35mm sensor to complete the product line. 

I bought SL because it was cheap so I could test the sensor. I'm usually an M-user and never thought I would try EVF. No complaints about weight but it takes a while to get used to the body with M-lenses. 

[Planetwide]

50 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I have to agree with trickness that it does seem like the people pushing the hardest for a smaller, lighter SL are more coming from the M, while people who seem to be quite satisfied with the size and weight are coming from the S. I don't think that is an unfair assessment. It only makes sense. I agree with sebben though that a lot of this would be solved with an M sized changeable lens EVF camera. At least in my opinion, this is what the CL should have been -- exactly as it was in the analog version. A compact full frame camera with an M mount, not an APS C version. The Q garners most of those sales, but people looking for an EVF M replacement gravitate to the SL, but that is not really what the design brief was. It was meant to be a full sized professional SLR replacement. Just look at the first lenses that came out for it...they were all enormous. Making it smaller and lighter is unlikely to help with the balance of those lenses. Already the SL2 and 90-280 feel a bit unbalanced because the lens is so large and heavy. In any case, Leica will do what they think suits the system best, but I personally would prefer if they kept the SL bodies more or less how they were with the SL and SL2. It would be nice however if the lovers of more compact cameras got their wish though too, perhaps with a compact full frame EVF camera. 

100% agree. They could even take an SL chassis, add the M sensor, a tilt-able screen and tilt-able EVF, make it M mount and call it a day...

[Jon Warwick]

57 minutes ago, steveBK said:

I'm similar.  M primary + EVF system of some sort, especially landscapes.

Would you replace the GFX with the SL3?  
Why did you go GFX over Hassy X2D given the design philosophy of Hassy being more Leica-esque?

I've had the SL, SL2, X1D all previously plus various Sony/Nikon mirrorless.  

Purely on specs, the GFX makes more sense especially if you consider cost.
I couldn't get my head around trying GFX after seeing the body/lens size & more-is-more controls design ala Sony.  

Not sure re replacing the GFX with an SL3. I’d need to closely compare the prints off both, photographing same subjects and on a tripod etc, and getting the prints done to know. For me a lot of what I look for is based on my “feel” of the prints, and I find that Leica images that I’ve taken can sometimes appear more alive and real than off the Fuji. Also, the GFX100S is so depreciated now, I might as well keep it. Reason for GFX rather than X2D owes simply to the latter not existing then! 

Edited February 29, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[tomasis7]

Quite beefy cooling parts of SL. Possible to minimize and remove features for a new CL. Like video, cooling, buttons 

 

Edited February 29, 2024 by tomasis7

[AZach]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Already the SL2 and 90-280 feel a bit unbalanced because the lens is so large and heavy. In any case, Leica will do what they think suits the system best, but I personally would prefer if they kept the SL bodies more or less how they were with the SL and SL2.

Agree that the size/weight ol SL and SL2 -bodies is of no concern. When I got the 90-280 for my SL was so excited that happily climbed with this set to the top of the pictured mountain, Mt. Rigi 1364m above Lake Lucerne level 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Simone_DF]

And yet, big cameras don’t sell. The S1R was a flop. The SL2 didn’t sell as much as hoped without bundles, discounts, deals, free M adapter and mr Kaufmann knocking door by door begging people to buy one. 
So, while I’m sure there are people willing to schlep it around, the percentage of those people is not enough to sustain the product as is. 

[trickness]

2 hours ago, Planetwide said:

All the Pro's that I know, myself included, complain about weight on every system that we happen to own 🤔. For all of them, lighter weight means that you can carry an extra lens, flash, gimbal, tripod etc... I routinely carry my gear for hours on end, and every 100g is scruntanized. That said, I will add weight for functionality. I did lug a SL 50 Lux clean across Vietnam 😁

Perhaps what I should’ve said was I don’t think this camera warrants any more complaint about weight than anything else out there that a pro might use

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

And yet, big cameras don’t sell. The S1R was a flop. The SL2 didn’t sell as much as hoped without bundles, discounts, deals, free M adapter and mr Kaufmann knocking door by door begging people to buy one. 
So, while I’m sure there are people willing to schlep it around, the percentage of those people is not enough to sustain the product as is. 

The Z8, Z9, GFX100 and R3 would disagree with you. The S1R was not as successful because Panasonic should have released the S5 first and then the S1R/S1X/S1 and done some better marketing. Plus, it was behind some other flagships in features that the *Tube* deemed essential for photographing your cat. The S1R is fabulous. Panasonic just didn't get it into enough peoples hands to see that.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[trickness]

I think all this endless circular discussion just illustrates that there will never be consensus on the ideal camera. Lots out there to choose from and if this particular machine doesn’t float your boat, just buy something else.

[la1402]

2 hours ago, trickness said:

I certainly agree about blanket statements not applying to everybody. And the same goes for cameras. It seems like the people who complain the loudest about how heavy the SL is are those who use the M system. But there are many reasons why the SL is heavier than the M, and they never mention those.

All of these cameras are tools, there are several different flavors to choose from by Leica, lots more from other brands. But there is no one camera that is gonna make everybody happy. Perhaps some folks would be better served finding another camera to use than endlessly going on about how heavy it is.

I think most people are very aware why a SL2 is bigger and heavier than an M. The typical comparison is not against M but against other, comparable mirrorless cameras. And apart from it's sexy, heavy duty appearance, there is no logical reason why the SL2 has to be much bigger and heavier than a Nikon Z7 or Sony A7R. It does not do anything that would justify it (quite the opposite). We may talk about how 120g matter or not. But all design choices together - the bigger size, higher weight and much more boxy design makes it a much less ergonomic experience. Some like it, some don't. No need to look down on those that don't or call it complaining.